Ars recently reported on intense efforts by American tech firms and lobbying groups to influence data protection reforms being debated in Brussels. Now, a new European activist group has published evidence illustrating that significant proposed revisions have been introduced, nearly wholesale, via model legislation written by American and European corporate interests.

This disclosure comes during an ever-intensifying level of political debate in Brussels that could have a substantial impact on how American tech companies—notably Amazon, Facebook, Google, and many others—operate in the European Union.

“We need a more balanced approach—people need to be aware that their privacy rules are being decided by a group of business people,” said Jan Philipp Albrecht, a German Green Party MEP. “And that's not what [citizens] expect the European Union to do.”

Over the weekend, one of the biggest champions for data protection reform, Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, said there had even been lobbying efforts that would outright exempt American companies from the proposed EU law. “Exempting non-EU companies from our data protection regulation is not on the table. It would mean applying double standards,” Reding told the Financial Times on Sunday.

“Data protection is a fundamental right in Europe which is clearly enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights," Reding continued. "Whilst this may not be the case in other parts of the world, one thing is clear: if companies want to tap into the European market, they have to apply European standards.”

LobbyPlag shows there are also notable similarities between draft opinions from the four other committees, which are currently considering their own legislative suggestions as part of the data protection reform process that began in early 2012. The European Commission sent those proposals to the European Parliament, which is now in the process of making its own revisions.

These lobbying efforts are remarkably similar to what happens in the US with groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative legislative lobbying group that provides “model legislation.”

Trans-Atlantic pressure

The new project has tracked changes that originally appeared in corporate policy papers from Amazon, eBay, the American Chamber of Commerce, the European Banking Federation, the Association of Consumer Credit Information Suppliers (ACCIS), the European Internet Service Provider Association (EuroISPA), Eurofinas (a banking and credit trade group), and DigitalEurope (another European tech corporate lobbying group).

Forbidding consumer groups from bringing lawsuits against corporations on behalf of individuals

Once this process among the committee concludes later this spring, the plan is to bring the reforms to a vote before the entire European Union parliament. If the complete package of measures is approved, it could streamline and strengthen data protection laws across all 27 member nations—but it would likely not take effect until 2016.

"A deficit of regulation"

Albrecht, the German parliamentarian, is the “rapporteur,” or parliamentary liaison, between his Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE) and the European Commission on this issue. LIBE is the primary consulting committee for the entire data protection reform process, and it's slated to conduct its final vote in April 2013.

In January 2013, MEP Albrecht published his draft response (PDF) to the Commission’s proposal. Among other principles, the response states, “the data subject should be granted clear and unambiguous rights to the provision of transparent, clear and easily understandable information regarding the processing of his or her personal data.”

The German MEP told Ars he worries that if lobbying efforts carry the day and exert as much influence on other committees, the proposed strengthening of data protection laws will, in fact, be weakened. “We are talking about a deficit of regulation,” he added. “At least the existing standard in the EU legislation should be followed. There shouldn't be an undermining of existing privacy rules. This is undermining the existing standards and we are endangering the project as a whole.”

In an effort to demonstrate (Google Translate) his own transparency, on Monday, Albrecht published an extensive list (ODS) detailing the organizations he and his office have met with on this issue since late March 2012. That group includes representatives from Facebook, the Center for Democracy and Technology, Symantec, Privacy International, the Office of the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, Microsoft, France Telecom, Amazon, Oracle, British Airways, and many others.

Amelia Andersdotter, a Swedish Pirate Party MEP, says she hopes her committee (Industry, Research and Energy, or ITRE) will exert more scrutiny when it votes on its final amendments on February 20—but it hasn't been exempt from these lobbying efforts either.

“The problem is not that amendments get copied-and-pasted but that these amendments undermine all rights to privacy of people in the European Union,” she told Ars.

“Politics is always about setting up frameworks for society: we choose frameworks, values and directions of our society to take. In this case, many of my colleagues from the industry committee have tabled proposals from really big corporations and business groups, like the banking industry or the American [tech] companies. They should probably have exercised more caution and scrutinized the proposals better before tabling them, but the big lobbies have been very clever in pushing that actually they're just trying to protect the small and medium-sized enterprises. LobbyPlag makes it quite obvious that the proposals do not originate with small and medium-sized enterprises.”

Enlarge/ The LobbyPlag project aims to show the significant influence of corporations on draft legislation.

"Unprecedented" dishonesty

LobbyPlag has been inspired by similar projects: dogged German data activists scrutinizing the doctoral dissertations of high-level German politicians and examining for evidence of plagiarism in higher education. As a result of this discovery, two cabinet-level ministers have resigned—the most recent one on Saturday.

As The New York Timesexplained over the weekend, the academic scandal prompted “national soul-searching about what the cases reveal about the German character,” and the obsessions with such academic titles. In German-speaking countries, including neighboring Switzerland and Austria, anyone with a doctorate (even if that doctorate is unrelated to their professional career) automatically confers higher wages and, more importantly, social respect. Those with two doctorates are even addressed as “Doctor Doctor.”

2(b) Mitigating factors which support lower or no administrative fines at all shall include (i) measures taken by the natural or legal person to ensure compliance with relevant obligations, (ii) genuine uncertainty as to whether the activity constituted a violation of the relevant obligations, (iii) immediate termination of the violation upon knowledge, and (iv) Co-operation with any enforcement processes.

And the draft proposed across three committees reads like this:

(2b) Mitigating factors which support administrative fines at the lower limits established in paragraphs 4 to 6 shall include: (i) measures having been taken by the natural or legal person to ensure compliance with relevant obligations; (ii) genuine uncertainty as to whether the activity constituted a violation of the relevant obligations; (iii) immediate termination of the violation upon knowledge; (iv) co-operation with any enforcement processes; (v) a data protection impact assessment has been undertaken; (vi) a data protection officer has been appointed.

In other words, if a company seems to be making an effort to get in line, then it would essentially be hit with very minimal fines. Compare that plan to what the European Commission has proposed, which would impose new fines of between one and four percent of global revenues for companies that violate the EU’s data protection rules.

Similarly, DigitalEurope, the umbrella EU tech lobbying group, wants the upper bound of fines to be almost impossible to reach. It wrote:

(a) Aggravating factors that support administrative fines at the upper limits established in paragraphs 4 to 6 shall include in particular: (i) repeated violations committed in reckless disregard of applicable law; (ii) refusal to co-operate with or obstruction of an enforcement process; and (iii) violations that are deliberate, serious and likely to cause substantial damage.

Again, compare this to what has been put forward in three EU committees:

2 a. Aggravating factors that support administrative fines at the upper limits established in paragraphs 4 to 6 shall include in particular: (i) repeated violations committed in reckless disregard of applicable law; (ii) refusal to co-operate with or obstruction of an enforcement process; (iii) violations that are deliberate, serious and likely to cause substantial damage; (iv) a data protection impact assessment has not been undertaken; (v) a data protection officer has not been appointed.

As a result of this new legislative “copy-paste” scandal, even the staunchest data protection advocates say there is still a “huge mountain to climb” to make sure the proposed reforms are fully enacted.

“Yesterday, it was an army of lobbyists, astroturfers, complaint trade associations, associations of compliant trade associations—against a handful of civil society actors,” Joe McNamee, of European Digital Rights, told Ars. “Today, it is the same, with a bit more transparency. This is new here—it would be bad enough if the destruction of the [proposed data protection] regulation was all that was happening. It is also destroying the way in which politics is done in Brussels. The dishonesty is new and unprecedented, and the astroturfing is new and unprecedented.”

You know what, I really think the corporations should ask for even more than this. Because if this goes through we only give up all our privacy rights. That's nothing, surely they could find something more for us to give up.

But seriously now, I really like how the corporations aren't even trying to conceal it any more. Just go all out, who cares.

I wish there was a way out of this for ordinary people but I really don't see it. The corporate interests are too strong and have too much money so they can quite literally buy any law they need to let them do whatever the hell they want. This is just incredible.

Or, to quote Joshua, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Using copypasta in lawmaking is actually perfectly fine. People who are complaining about this are being rather nonsensical. If someone else has a good, well-written law, copy it! Its not like its against the rules.

Secondly:

Taking advice from industry groups isn't actually a .... etc. etc.

tldr?

What pisses me off about this is that it shows how corrupted a supposedly democratic system can get. If this stuff actually gets written into law, that is.

Using copypasta in lawmaking is actually perfectly fine. People who are complaining about this are being rather nonsensical. If someone else has a good, well-written law, copy it! Its not like its against the rules.

No one's saying that it's against the rules—but I think all people can agree that a profit-making entity (a corporation) may not always have the same goals as the public interest.

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Lobbyplag is actually itself a special interest group. Reporting from them as if they "represent the people" is just plain old wrong; they don't. You have to treat any claim of theirs as skeptically as any industry group's.

I'm all for disclosure, but disclosure of personal information is dangerous ground. This is EXACTLY the sort of thing you actually DO need input from industry groups on, because you need to define what personal data is and how it gets disclosed in circumstances like this.

Again, I don't think that anyone is denying the need for industry input, given that they hold the keys to the kingdom. I think there is concern that what industry puts forward, likely in the interests of profit-making, can supersede public interest.

Lobbyplag's organization is very professional looking, and they have no history I can find before yesterday. Those are big warning flags for me. They should be for you, and for Ars, as well, not to immediately trust them.

Its fine to report on things like this, but you have to be careful. Not understanding the subject matter and misrepresenting it (and indeed, representing propaganda as fact) is dangerous.

This article is written terribly unskeptically. Remember, all organizations claim to be good guys. They forgot this when they wrote the article.

EDIT: And I'm sure some of you will be like "CORPORATE SHILL! CORPORATE SHILL!" Firstly, you should all take a swing.

Secondly, I'm pushing back against this because this article is completely non-skpetical of these folks. Lobbyplag's organization is very professional looking, and they have no history I can find before yesterday. Those are big warning flags for me. They should be for you, and for Ars, as well, not to immediately trust them.

Its fine to report on things like this, but you have to be careful. Not understanding the subject matter and misrepresenting it (and indeed, representing propaganda as fact) is dangerous.

This article is written terribly unskeptically. Remember, all organizations claim to be good guys. They forgot this when they wrote the article.

You know what are the facts? We, Europeans in general, highly dislike corporations getting into politics. That goes double for law making process.

The whole angry mob theme you have going on and you calling them morons and idiots just kills any message you are trying to convey.

Someone should go to jail for this already. Is it a criminal offense to misrepresent your identity (or the identities and motivations of your clients) to a politician or political committee, for lobbying purposes? Or, is it a criminal offense for a politician to misrepresent the source of text for an amendment of a proposed law? It should be...

There is a difference between a government having it's citizen's private data vs some private organization having generally everyone's (or at least wherever they operate) data.

And looking at this article, it would appear the proposed law will apply to everyone operating within EU. US groups merely proposed an amendment that would exclude foreign organizations from the law (which got shot down).

Bribes know no boarders. Too bad no government wants to fight bribery anymore; so much so they might as well change the law to make it legal. It's not like politicians don't accept bribes openly anyways!

Bribes know no boarders. Too bad no government wants to fight bribery anymore; so much so they might as well change the law to make it legal. It's not like politicians don't accept bribes openly anyways!

You know which government constantly fights bribery? Russian. Guess how that works out?

As to the lobbying, I think those corporations seem to believe they can operate the same way in the EU as they do in the US. I hope the European Parliament slams the door in their face - hard. Over the past few years it has become that only the European Parliament seems to have the interests of EU citizens in mind. The European Commission and national governments apparently don't believe that to be a priority. So, here's to our last, best hope for democracy and privacy.

It really is disgusting that politicians cannot show the ability to think through issues, and instead accept what they are told by their paymasters. They are not there to serve corporations, they are there to serve citizens. This just demonstrates politicians failing in their duty, and they should be resigning after this kind of expose.

@Cyrus Farivar, you may want to have a closer look at the views of the people you're quoting. Titanium Dragon is either an industry shill or so close to it that it makes no difference. His posts read like M*AA press releases, and his responses to objections follow the "I was an industry shill" guidebook very closely.

I try to avoid his stuff, but when people quote it, that suggests he is being taken seriously. He has only one hymn-book, and he sings very loudly from it.

Corporations are not bunches of people. Furthermore, you say of many things in your two posts that they are debatable, or 'not necessarily a good thing' or stuff like that without explaining yourself. That's not a good way of debating. Finally, you sound like a troll.

Does not surprise me. EU and/or national legislation has long since been written by external law firms and industry experts. Incompetent politicians sell people's rights and democracy to the highest bidder these days. Nothing but greed, everywhere. Appalling.

Using copypasta in lawmaking is actually perfectly fine. People who are complaining about this are being rather nonsensical. If someone else has a good, well-written law, copy it! Its not like its against the rules.

Firstly, this is just silly. I've seen your politics; you guys have corporations in there all over the place. If you think you don't, then you're in trouble.

I’ll include this just shining example: there are actually worthy arguments to be found in your overlong rant, but drowned in a morass of Debate 101 crappy rhetoric.Note that I have little qualms about making authoritative points myself when it comes to you; here goes.

So, _if_ you’ve seen our politics, you have _no doubt_ observed that:1/ Europe is not one nation, and political traditions differ a lot across countries; and yes, it’s relevant to the subject at hand, which is not the EC but public opinion.2/ European countries usually differ from the USA in that we haven’t really institutionalised lobbying; we still (try to) consider politics as an ideological endeavour first. “Do no evil” vs “better the devil you know”I’m not saying that our way is better than your way.But I do say that if you’re trying to understand European politics and European public opinion based on USA assumption, you’re seriously off the mark.(I just love that! Writing like you is like talking dirty, it’s intellectual slumming without having to watch american TV!).

As for the EC debating on hidden taxes on foreign (US) corporations: how inane is that?By the same token, the USA (and the EU) should seriously consider abrogating those hidden taxes against China, you know, such as health and safety regulations.You want to sell Chinese toys in the US, they need to meet US standards; same goes for the EU and privacy.

I seem to remember one of your founding fathers quipping about those who would trade freedom for safety; what would he say about those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for money or expediency, both not even theirs.

And as much as I like reading Mencken *, he was all about seeing a problem (which is useful), not about finding practical solutions (which is more so).I like the European idea of privacy as it stands, and I don’t want to see it americanized; that’s ideology, and it trumps free-market capitalism or revenge legislation threats (which exist anyway, with or without a specific casus belli).

*Off topic, “On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” Before Dubya was even born!

jalexoid wrote:

"We see this just as strongly in France, where a fifth of Muslims are atheist and only 5% attend a mosque regularly – almost the same rate as French Christians." - Muslim atheists, that's rich!

And why not? Being a Muslim or a Catholic (as most French Christians are bound to be) in a demographic sense is not a personal choice (baptism often happens before the age of reason); it's no surprise that people develop an opinion later on. Plus agnostism is often confused with atheism.

jalexoid wrote:

You know which government constantly fights bribery? Russian. Guess how that works out?

EDIT: And I'm sure some of you will be like "CORPORATE SHILL! CORPORATE SHILL!" Firstly, you should all take a swing.

Secondly, I'm pushing back against this because this article is completely non-skpetical of these folks. Lobbyplag's organization is very professional looking, and they have no history I can find before yesterday. Those are big warning flags for me. They should be for you, and for Ars, as well, not to immediately trust them.

Its fine to report on things like this, but you have to be careful. Not understanding the subject matter and misrepresenting it (and indeed, representing propaganda as fact) is dangerous.

This article is written terribly unskeptically. Remember, all organizations claim to be good guys. They forgot this when they wrote the article.

You know what are the facts? We, Europeans in general, highly dislike corporations getting into politics. That goes double for law making process.

The whole angry mob theme you have going on and you calling them morons and idiots just kills any message you are trying to convey.

This will always be the dividing line between the US and EU. In the US, corporations can directly and indirectly fund their pet politicians election bids. This gains them leverage which is why it's not even unusual for US legislators to support bills written by those corporations and their lobbying groups. In the EU, the very notion that corporations could exert any influence sufficient to override the will of the people is terrifying. For example, Ireland has strict rules about party fundraising to ensure undue influence is avoided (not simply disclosed as a fop to the unwashed masses). Try suggesting that to any politician in the US...

This goes against any free market and economy, if the US started to create laws and regulations against non US companies how would that end?

The US does create laws and regulations against non-US companies. EU banks must adhere to US federal law when operating with US citizens, for example. The US also mandated requirements for EU passports (I had to get mine re-issued for a cost to enter the US). It's an endless list.

You're also missing the point. EU citizens WANT these data protections regulations. They are popularly supported by the people. What the US government thinks is irrelevant. What US companies think is irrelevant. I don't give a crap about your "free market and economy" because it has nothing to do with data.

Bribes know no boarders. Too bad no government wants to fight bribery anymore; so much so they might as well change the law to make it legal. It's not like politicians don't accept bribes openly anyways!

The article does not refer to any bribes, any charges of corruption, or any other known illegal activity.

Firstly, this is just silly. I've seen your politics; you guys have corporations in there all over the place. If you think you don't, then you're in trouble.

They are lobbying the executive branch, and to a much lesser degree lawmakers. Having corporate backers or backing a corporation is a huge negative fact to have for a politician.

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Secondly, let's be realistic here: corporations DO have a right to be involved in politics, just as everyone else does. Corporations are just groups of people with common interests like everyone else.

That is YOUR opinion, that of a non European I might add. Corporations do get to express their views in the consultation phase. They can ask their own employees(that, if treated well, will turn out in support for that corporation). There are consultation periods

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Ultimately the real problem is that almost everyone ISN'T in it for the public good, they're in it for THEMSELVES.

Separate public from themselves. Considering that this is EU we're talking about, the only "themselves" are the non-EU companies, because even the EU privacy groups are part of the public.

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Many of these provisions have anticompetitive purposes - the huge fine, for instance, is an attempt to prevent international companies from competing in Europe, as if you're not already entrenched in Europe, pushing in and getting fined an enormous amount when the EU doesn't represent much of your revenue makes it very risky to enter.

Laws that apply to everyone are not anti-competitive by definition - no single party is given a competitive advantage.PS: Does it mean that we are restricting competition by not allowing those high incident rate airlines fly in our airspace?

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Its very likely that provision was pushed for by some group in the EU which was out for itself and against foreign competition.

Really? Or how about it extends the provisions of data protection laws that exist in many EU countries. But hey, what do I know, I only worked in data protection audit units in a few "small scale" tel.co's(T-Mobile, Vodafone, Orange, etc) and government agencies(Irish DoJ, etc)

Titanium Dragon wrote:

They don't really understand what they're advocating for, they don't understand the costs involved, they don't understand that in reality most of this stuff really ISN'T a big deal, and it certainly isn't worth the expenses in many cases.

You calling them morons and idiots from overseas really makes you seem more knowledgeable. These guys do understand. They are, in fact, industry insiders. For you it may not be a big deal, for many more it is.PS: You probably are against securing your CC information as well. I mean, you can't be that big of a hypocrite, can you?

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Very few people have a balanced approach to politics because people who are balanced tend not to have very strong voices; it is the fanatics who push for things heavily, whereas people who are mostly okay don't.

You know why we value multi party system? Because it forces a balanced view. As for fanatics, I hope you see the irony in that statement.

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Its probably a bit hard to tell, but some of the provisos (such as the one I pointed out) do indeed disproportionately impact foreign corporations.

OMG!!! I'm disproportionately impacted, because I have to comply with EU rules when I do business in EU! (That doesn't seem right)Just like Apple was disproportionately impacted when it had to disclose that they provide a mandatory 2 year warranty on their devices in EU.

Secondly, let's be realistic here: corporations DO have a right to be involved in politics, just as everyone else does. Corporations are just groups of people with common interests like everyone else.

Corporations are not people. That's a stupid US concept created to allow politicians continue gathering up corporate money for their election runs (in return for absolutely nothing obviously...).

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Many of these provisions have anticompetitive purposes - the huge fine, for instance, is an attempt to prevent international companies from competing in Europe, as if you're not already entrenched in Europe, pushing in and getting fined an enormous amount when the EU doesn't represent much of your revenue makes it very risky to enter. Its very likely that provision was pushed for by some group in the EU which was out for itself and against foreign competition.

These regulations will apply equally to both US and EU companies. That, by definition, cannot be anti-competitive. Do you require a dictionary?

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Special interest groups for the handicapped fight to take money away from other kids to redirect it towards their own.

Every special interest group is evil, and almost everyone has at least a few special interests. And they don't see it as being wrong to try and advantage themselves. That includes the so-called privacy advocates; these people don't care that they hurt everyone else, so long as their own personal paranoid world view becomes reality.

I want to delete my data so Facebook cannot use it against my will. I no longer use their service. Their usage of my data, for free, is actually a liability to me at that point. How does this hurt anyone else? Answer: It only harms Facebook since they no longer get to vacuum up all personal data and retain it even for former users. As for being paranoid - data breaches are uncomfortably common. I would indeed like to limit my exposure.

Also, it's my frickin' personal data. MINE.

Titanium Dragon wrote:

Its not against the law for politicians to accept advice, nor should it be.

It is not illegal in any democracy. However, undue influence by entities whose sole motivation is to make profit must always yield to the people. That undue influence is illegal in the EU. Corporations represent a tiny fraction of the populace. In the case of US companies, they represent a whole lot less than that. Since the EU is a democracy, Facebook should have minimal influence on legislation (i.e. it is limited to the same mouthing as any other individual).

Titanium Dragon wrote:

It could be that the corporations basically pointed out what was going on and the people changed their minds. It could be that the people backing some of the restrictions backed off or were scared off when they realized that they'd been caught. It could be that revenge legislation was noted - legislation that would punish EU companies for doing business in the US.

You really are a shill, aren't you? The law applies to both EU and US companies. It cannot, by definition, be anti-competitive if there is no competitive advantage conferred on the EU companies. Since they too must apply the same regulations...use your brain instead of the corporate script you're reading from. Also, less Fox News.

Titanium Dragon wrote:

There is a difference, though whether it is a positive one is debatable.

Yes, governments collect tax. They need to know your name and other details in order to make sure that tax is correctly paid. Also, people need to vote. The government like to make sure everyone voting is really who they say they are. It is REQUIRED for a government to hold personal information in order to function.

"We see this just as strongly in France, where a fifth of Muslims are atheist and only 5% attend a mosque regularly – almost the same rate as French Christians." - Muslim atheists, that's rich!

And why not? Being a Muslim or a Catholic (as most French Christians are bound to be) in a demographic sense is not a personal choice (baptism often happens before the age of reason); it's no surprise that people develop an opinion later on. Plus agnostism is often confused with atheism.

A Muslim in a demographic sense is a practitioner of Islam. Atheists are not Muslim or Christian, again by definition.

AlbinoChocobo wrote:

jalexoid wrote:

You know which government constantly fights bribery? Russian. Guess how that works out?

A Muslim in a demographic sense is a practitioner of Islam. Atheists are not Muslim or Christian, again by definition.

A Christian in a demographic sense is someone who has been baptised in a Christian faith. Numbers are taken out of church records. Notice how this demographic definition does not include individual criteria.An atheist is (simplistically) a person who rejects belief in deities. Notice how this is a very personal definition.Now see how an individual can match both definitions, ie : having received baptism, and doubting the existence of a God.There is no 'by definition' since we're using definitions, plural. See fallacy of equivocation, or semantic shift.

Same reasoning applies for Muslims, except that the demographic definition is even less clear, in the absence of a sacrament; usually being born to self-proclaimed Muslims will flag you as a Muslim statistic.

If you really believe that statistics are a clear observation of personal faith, look up the proportion of Catholics in your country. Lent is upon us. Go to a church, and test your numbers.

As for (obviously) practitioners of a revealed monotheistic faith not being atheists, well ...

jalexoid wrote:

AlbinoChocobo wrote:

jalexoid wrote:

You know which government constantly fights bribery? Russian. Guess how that works out?

Works out better than letting corruption run rampant?

It's called a "smokescreen".

Again, semantic shift. If the Russian government is smokescreening, then it is not fighting bribery, and therefore is not a relevant example. If it actually is trying to prevent bribery, but has not so far succeeded in completely stamping it out, I say they continue, and that partial failure is also partial success.

1/ Europe is not one nation, and political traditions differ a lot across countries; and yes, it’s relevant to the subject at hand, which is not the EC but public opinion.

I have. But this is kind of irrelevant. You assume that I haven't seen elections in multiple countries in Europe (contrary to popular opinion in Europe, American news does indeed report on such things - and I read about it).

Really the whole idea that Americans are ignorant in general is a rather laughable meme. Almost EVERYONE is ignorant, regardless of country, and the US is not especially bad as far as ignorance goes - indeed, it is rather above average in many categories.

Quote:

2/ European countries usually differ from the USA in that we haven’t really institutionalised lobbying; we still (try to) consider politics as an ideological endeavour first. “Do no evil” vs “better the devil you know”

I've seen your politics. If you think this is how they work, then you're in a for a rude shock.

Quote:

But I do say that if you’re trying to understand European politics and European public opinion based on USA assumption, you’re seriously off the mark.

Uh, no. I just look at who your politicians are and how they make their money. Sometimes it is pretty brazenly obvious, sometimes a bit less so, but really it just means you guys are more ignorant of your politicians than I am (as an American, someone who lives on the other side of a freaking ocean from you). Italy is a great example.

Quote:

By the same token, the USA (and the EU) should seriously consider abrogating those hidden taxes against China, you know, such as health and safety regulations.You want to sell Chinese toys in the US, they need to meet US standards; same goes for the EU and privacy.

The problem is that, quite simply, it isn't comparable. Its the EU trying to get something for nothing, and shift burden, as usual, onto the US. Just as they do with military spending.

Quote:

I seem to remember one of your founding fathers quipping about those who would trade freedom for safety; what would he say about those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for money or expediency, both not even theirs.

The problem is that you don't even understand what is going on at all. This indicates you have fallen deeply into propaganda.

The ultimate argument at the heart of all this is competing rights: do companies have the right to track their users? You are trying to limit that right. That is exactly what is being argued over it. But you aren't framing it that way because your mind is incapable of doing so. YOu have already fallen into the trap that regulation is freedom.

Regulation is not freedom. In fact, the more laws you have, the less freedom you have, generally speaking. There are exceptions, but it is a general rule. And in this case it is indeed an attempt to curb the freedom of business owners. They are not REQUIRED to track you presently, but some DO. You want to make it so none can without your permission. But that IS restricting the rights of those corporations to do business freely, and smoothly.

Once you see this as an issue of COMPETING rights - the right to privacy versus the right to track people while they are using your website - then you kind of realize that it isn't really the "go freedom!" that insane privacy advocates claim. Its about taking rights away from other people.

So which is right? Well, it is generally well established that people are indeed allowed to monitor the movements of customers in their own stores - CCTV cameras are everywhere. Likewise, it is well established that monitoring customers in your store in order to improve your service is legitimate. With better technology, we can do this better today than ever before, and with face recognition software, it would be possible for me to track every single customer in my store, as well as keep out customers who have caused problems in the past, are known shoplifters, ect. Indeed, some stores already do this more crudely with members cards, only allowing you in if you have a card and tracking every purchase you make at said store via your member card. But you, being severely ignorant, probably never even thought about this fact, or even this possibility. But it already happens. And why, exactly, should they not be able to do these things? Is it not their store? Is it not their right? Do you have the right to do that on your own property?

So the idea that somehow, Google shouldn't be allowed to get information from you when you use their website is beyond absurd. Its THEIR website, and YOU are giving them the data willingly - YOU choose to go there, not them. If you don't ever want to do business with Google, you can put them on your block list. But no. You want to be able to waltz into their place and use it freely without them being able to exert their own property rights. Your hope is that other people will subsidize your doing this.

This is nonsense of the highest degree. If you go somewhere, you are implicitly giving them the right to know you're there. Some places may deliberately choose NOT to know you're there. And that's perfectly fine, as it is THEIR RIGHT to do exactly that. But YOU don't have the right to force me to look the other way when you come into my place of business. And that is precisely what you are claiming you should have the right to do.

If you were serious about this - if you thought this really would be the way that people would prefer - why don't you go out and do it? Make your own search engine which doesn't track its users. Make a store that doesn't track its users' purchases. Make a news site that doesn't look at who goes there. Its fine, no one is stopping you. Feel free to do it! Its a free internet, why shouldn't you be able to do what you want to?

But if you come to MY website, I have the right to look at the people who come there, to monitor their usage, and to use that knowledge to improve ther experience and the experience of others. I can show them more pertinent products and work to better suit their needs. If I am a search engine, I will include the option to disable this so that you can look at things empirically, neutrally, by their own merits, which is important to many people (such as myself, incidentally); likewise if I am a store, its okay if someone wants not to have the experience suited to their taste, because that IS their taste, and if they want to turn off my showing them the products that they are most likely to enjoy per my statistical analysis, well whatever.

Quote:

I like the European idea of privacy as it stands, and I don’t want to see it americanized; that’s ideology, and it trumps free-market capitalism or revenge legislation threats (which exist anyway, with or without a specific casus belli).

The problem is you guys -don't- have an idea of privacy. You guys have a severe case of stupid. It isn't internally consistent, nor does it make sense at all, and it isn't applied uniformly. Moreover, you are attempting to attack the rights of others, and put undue burden on people from other countries for even daring to do business with people in the EU, who by and large DON'T CARE - but DO complain when they can't get something because they're in the wrong country. Seriously, I hear complaints ALL THE TIME by people from the EU or Australia when they can't see something from the US like Pandora.

So if I, as a business in the US, am doing my best to help out my primary customer base (in the US), and I COULD offer service to people in the EU at no additional cost, I would. But if the EU has ridiculous, inconsistent, convoluted, illogical, and extreme laws and restrictions in place on my doing business there, if they can fine me 4% of my GLOBAL revenun, why on earth would I want to do business in the EU, when I have to keep track of tons of random regulations which make no sense?

This is precisely what is going on here. This isnt' about the right to privacy - this is about extreme regulations which don't actually do anything to protect your privacy from nefarious people, the people you SHOULD be worried about tracking you (as there's nothing preventing you from being tracked in what we like to call reality), but DO act to make legitimate businesses less likely to do business in the EU due to additional burdensome regulation.

If you genuinely think that this will improve privacy, you're an idiot. Your privacy on the internet is limited by reality, not legality, and any attempt to legislate reality will ultimately fail. You CAN be tracked; it may be illegal for me to do so without your permission, but that doesn't mean that I cannot do so, merely that I am not supposed to do so. But that doesn't mean I won't, it means that I'll hide it if I do, or that I don't care about the law in the first place, and the last category are the people you most need to worry about in the first place - and if they're overseas, your attempt at hurting them with your laws is futile.

This is reality. The reality is that this law is either a severe case of stupid born by politicians, or worse still an attempt at anti-competitive practices by European companies which don't want to have to deal with competition from superior companies in the US. "But it hurts them too!" you may cry, but this is wrong - the problem is that it hurts them a lot less than it hurts foreign companies. Much like how the prison workers union hurts all Californians every time they push for harsher sentences, because it costs more tax dollars to keep up the prisons, but because they are bad, selfish people, they personally make more money so consider the societal cost worth it, because they hurt everyone else, but they gain themselves. The same is true here.

If you had any experience dealing with this sort of person, you'd know this. But you clearly don't. You have been suckered by propaganda. Any time someone tells you "this is for freedom", you should always be deeply, deeply skeptical and example whose rights are being hurt, and who benefits.

Quote:

And why not? Being a Muslim or a Catholic (as most French Christians are bound to be) in a demographic sense is not a personal choice (baptism often happens before the age of reason); it's no surprise that people develop an opinion later on. Plus agnostism is often confused with atheism.

Agnosticism is a form of atheism in most cases.

Cathbadhian wrote:

This will always be the dividing line between the US and EU. In the US, corporations can directly and indirectly fund their pet politicians election bids. This gains them leverage which is why it's not even unusual for US legislators to support bills written by those corporations and their lobbying groups. In the EU, the very notion that corporations could exert any influence sufficient to override the will of the people is terrifying. For example, Ireland has strict rules about party fundraising to ensure undue influence is avoided (not simply disclosed as a fop to the unwashed masses). Try suggesting that to any politician in the US...

Ahahaha. Wow, you guys are so ignorant. Its incredible.

Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy three times, owned Mediaset. Ciampi, another prime minister of Italy, was a big-time banker.

Jaques Chirac, president of France from 1995 to 2007, has been convicted of diversion of public funds.

Those two are just off the top of my head without much thought into it. The idea that the EU is free of such corruption is beyond comical - it is an outright denial of reality.

Really, it just means you guys don't even know what your own politicians are doing. Europe is full of this kind of corruption. Ireland is deeply corrupt - look at their corporate income tax and role in tax loopholes. The same applies to other countries. Yes, some are more corrupt than others, but the idea that Europe as a whole is free of corporate influence is beyond laughable.

You really have no perspective on how corrupt the US system is. It really isn't as corrupt as most people think it is. Do you know why they propose legislation that corporations write? Do you? No, of course not. Its because they do it publicly. You have no idea how much of your legislation is written by corporations. We do. And moreover, most of that isn't even corruption - its mostly because politicians don't really know what they're doing. Politicians are non-experts; they're elected based on electability, not on competency. And that's true in the EU as well. They put forward said bills because they trust them to be acting in the public good. They are too stupid to understand if they aren't.

Now this isn't to say regular old corruption doesn't exist in the US - it does. Bill Richardson is a great example of a politician who directly accepted bribes. But most corruption in the US is the result of ignorance.

Quote:

You're also missing the point. EU citizens WANT these data protections regulations. They are popularly supported by the people. What the US government thinks is irrelevant. What US companies think is irrelevant. I don't give a crap about your "free market and economy" because it has nothing to do with data.

No. They've been told that they want them. They don't understand the regulations, nor what they mean, nor what their purpose is.

Americans "wanted" the PATRIOT Act after 9/11. Does that mean the PATRIOT Act was desirable? No.

You're a sucker for supporting this. You don't even understand what you're supporting.

jalexoid wrote:

They are lobbying the executive branch, and to a much lesser degree lawmakers. Having corporate backers or backing a corporation is a huge negative fact to have for a politician.

Which explains how the owner of Mediaset became Prime Minister of Italy three times how, exactly?

Its seen as a negative to be a corporate crony in the US, too. Does this mean that we don't elect people who act as corporate cronies?

You have this idea of purity which is not borne out by reality. This is because you are not actually observing reality empirically. You are thinking with your gut; you are speaking truthiness, not truth.

Quote:

That is YOUR opinion, that of a non European I might add. Corporations do get to express their views in the consultation phase. They can ask their own employees(that, if treated well, will turn out in support for that corporation). There are consultation periods

Uh, no, its a fact. A corporation is a legal entity which represents the financial interests of those who own the company and those who work for it. They are not soulless entities which don't represent real people - the logic behind Citizens United was very simple. People have the right to band together and petition the government; a corporation is the same as any other group of people in this regard, ergo they have the same rights as any other group of people to band together and petition the government or pay for advertisements promoting their positions on issues. Its freedom of speech, pure and simple.

You will find a lot of nonsense propaganda against this fact, but it is reality, something many people have only a passing familiarity with.

What is a corporation, if NOT a group of people?

Quote:

Separate public from themselves. Considering that this is EU we're talking about, the only "themselves" are the non-EU companies, because even the EU privacy groups are part of the public.

This isn't for the public good.

Quote:

Laws that apply to everyone are not anti-competitive by definition - no single party is given a competitive advantage.PS: Does it mean that we are restricting competition by not allowing those high incident rate airlines fly in our airspace?

This is why stupid people should not be allowed to vote.

Just because a law applies to everyone does not mean that it applies equally to everyone. That is the key. It is the illusion of fairness, as I explained in my post. A company in the EU is hurt less by a 1-4% global fine than a company not based in the EU. Its just the simple truth. And it is very obvious what the net effect is - a discouragement of foreign companies from entering EU markets for fear of a huge fine.

You failed to even address my point. Are you brainwashed? Was your brain even capable of looking at those words and forming them into a concept?

If I passed a law "No one is allowed to eat meat", that would apply to everyone, but that wouldn't affect everyone equally. If I pass a law, "All companies must provide directions in French and English", that would affect a Canadian company very differently from a Chinese company.

Note that not all of these laws are inherently unreasonable; that is not my stance. Just that oftentimes these laws DO have unequal effect, and very often this is by their very intent.

If you charged them only 1-4% of EU revenues in damage, it would STILL be a significant penalty, but it would impact companies more equally - if I'm a foreign company thinking of entering the EU market, I take no more risk than an EU company doing the same. If I am Google, then 1-4% of EU revenues is still significant. If I'm a nobody with no stake in the EU market, then it is nothing - but I couldn't be causing much damage then either.

Moreover, this law has the purpose of advantaging larger corporations - a small one-man company has to spend a huge amount of effort dealing with the regulation, to the point where it isn't worth it, whereas a big company can eat the cost. Again, this is an attempt to attack competition - just because everyone has to "meet the same standards" does not mean that those standards have equal impact on everyone.

Quote:

Really? Or how about it extends the provisions of data protection laws that exist in many EU countries. But hey, what do I know, I only worked in data protection audit units in a few "small scale" tel.co's(T-Mobile, Vodafone, Orange, etc) and government agencies(Irish DoJ, etc)

So you're openly admitting that you are not a neutral party, but indeed have a great deal of interest in such protectionism, and indeed are complicit in it but don't even think of it because such corruption is already so normal to you?

Me, personally? I'm an honest man. I've worked for various tech companies and I've known numerous people in the state government, and some in the federal government. I have read a great deal about such things, and listened, and learned.

And I can tell you that this stinks of protectionism. Whether or not you are capable of percieving it as such, that is reality.

Quote:

You calling them morons and idiots from overseas really makes you seem more knowledgeable. These guys do understand. They are, in fact, industry insiders. For you it may not be a big deal, for many more it is.

I understand better than you do. I even explained it to you, and you did not respond to my explanation. You just said "nuh uhhhh!"

If you had understanding, you would have replied to my points. Therefore, either you do not understand, and do not wish to confront your ignorance, or you DO understand, and are attempting to spread your propaganda.

So you're either stupid or a liar. Which is it?

Of course, it could be both.

Try responding to my actual points next time.

Quote:

PS: You probably are against securing your CC information as well. I mean, you can't be that big of a hypocrite, can you?

There is a fundamental difference between Google knowing that its users choose the fourth instead of the first search term when they search for some string and information that is used to commit ficanical fraud.

Sadly, this is neither a point towards nor against you being stupid or a propagandist, as it is the same sort of inane argument that both would make.

Cathbadhian wrote:

Corporations are not people. That's a stupid US concept created to allow politicians continue gathering up corporate money for their election runs (in return for absolutely nothing obviously...).

Corporations exist for the purpose of making it easier to keep track of what exactly is going on. A corporation represents its shareholders, and to some extent its employees', interests. A corporation is merely a convenient label for said people.

Ergo, corporations have the same rights as all groups of people do, because they are nothing more than a group of people, or possibly a single person.

The idea that somehow, magically, the fact that it is a group of people means that suddenly those people lose all their rights is insane. But that is precisely what you, and those like you, claim.

Quote:

These regulations will apply equally to both US and EU companies. That, by definition, cannot be anti-competitive. Do you require a dictionary?

I already told you why it is anti-competitive:

A corporation in the EU takes 1-4% of global revenues, which is equivalent to its EU revenues.

A corporation in the US which takes 1-4% of global revenues in fine, is NOT proportional to its EU revenues.

Ergo, a large company in the US seeking to spread its influence to Europe would be fined disproportionately, whereas a business already in the EU is not. This is especially true of smaller businesses, which may only have a small number ofcustomers in Europe, and which still could face enormous, business,crushing fines.

Quote:

I want to delete my data so Facebook cannot use it against my will. I no longer use their service. Their usage of my data, for free, is actually a liability to me at that point. How does this hurt anyone else? Answer: It only harms Facebook since they no longer get to vacuum up all personal data and retain it even for former users. As for being paranoid - data breaches are uncomfortably common. I would indeed like to limit my exposure.

Too bad.

Seriously. That's the answer. You gave them that information. It already exists out there on the internet. You can't take back the past, and it shouldn't be your right to force THEM to face undue expense deleting everything. What about their backups? What about every possible crosslink?

Sorry, but you SHOULD BE SOL. You can delete what you have access to, and you can refuse to put out anything more, but you don't, nor should you have, the right to try to undo the past.

You made the decision of putting it there. That isn't their fault. The fact that you have now been convinced that the Illuminati are after you is irrelevant to them, and they should not have to bear the costs of your personal paranoia.

If there are data breaches, then yes, it is their problem if their information on you gets out. But they should not be required to delete it.

Quote:

Also, it's my frickin' personal data. MINE.

You gave it up to them. You don't have the right to erase the past. If you said you love drinking and hate black people, and in ten years you decide that is a liability, you don't have the right to erase the fact that you ever said it. Period.

Quote:

It is not illegal in any democracy. However, undue influence by entities whose sole motivation is to make profit must always yield to the people. That undue influence is illegal in the EU. Corporations represent a tiny fraction of the populace. In the case of US companies, they represent a whole lot less than that. Since the EU is a democracy, Facebook should have minimal influence on legislation (i.e. it is limited to the same mouthing as any other individual).

So people who make money aren't "the people"?

People who benefit from Google's free services aren't "the people"?

Advertisers who benefit from targeted advertisements aren't "the people"?

People who are employed by the manufacturers of the products which now get better sales (for less moneY) and therefore have jobs as a result of better sales/lower costs aren't "the people"?

People who are not insane aren't "the people"?

People who are supporting this legislation for the purpose of protectionism and hurting foreign competition are "the people"?

Sorry, this argument doesn't fly.

The reality is that you're trying to hurt other people. Its bad legislation, plain and simple.

Corporations do not represent a tiny fraction of the populace. The idea that they do is deeply flawed. Any given corporation may only represent a fraction of the populace, but corporations benefit the entire populace, and between all the corporations, they employ a huge percentage of the population - and small businesses, those who are most harmed by this legislation, employ more, but they lack the power of the big corporations.

Quote:

You really are a shill, aren't you? The law applies to both EU and US companies. It cannot, by definition, be anti-competitive if there is no competitive advantage conferred on the EU companies. Since they too must apply the same regulations...use your brain instead of the corporate script you're reading from. Also, less Fox News.

I already explained why it was anti-competitive. You are suffering from the very delusion that I pointed out, the very mental trick I explained.

You are the person who listens to nothing but propaganda. If you are incapable of understanding how a company in the US and a company in the EU would be impacted differently by this legislation after it being explained to you that the company in the US takes a much greater burden complying with the laws, then you are incapable of any sort of intelligent or rational thought.

People like you should not be allowed to vote, because you are incapable of understanding the way that legislation actually works. Without that understanding, you are incapable of making any sort of informed decision on what the laws should be.

TL;DR: Read my original post, none of you have even addressed my central points there. None of you addressed why I am wrong. If you cannot explain why I am wrong, and just repeat the same argument over and over again, it proves that you are incompetent and unaware of it, and your opinions are utterly worthless.

For reference, they were:

1) A company which is not located in the EU will be disincentivized from doing business in the EU if they must spend a great deal of additional money up front in order to deal with insane, nonsensical regulations, thus allowing companies already in the EU protection from competition from businesses in the US or other countries, hurting citizens of the EU by depriving them both of competition and of products available only in the US.

2) A company which is not located in the EU will be disincentivized from doing business in the EU because taking 1-4% of their global REVENUE, when they don't even get 1% of their REVENUE from the EU yet, is a huge and disproportionate penalty which means they again don't want to enter the market unless they can get a huge market share there. Again, this benefits EU companies disproportionately because their risk is proportional to their revenue in the market while it is not for a foreign company, meaning that the two have very different risk:reward ratios, with the foreign-based compaying having to risk more.

3) These privacy laws do nothing to protect you from unscrupulous people or from people who do not actually do business in the EU, and therefore do not fall under their jurisdiction; it only penalizes legitimate companies which actually care about obeying the law, and encourages them to behave unscrupulously. It is an attempt to legislate reality, but it doesn't actually give you any better privacy, it simply encourages companies to hide any snooping they do on you, deny the reality of any security breach, and for third parties which do snooping to be completely unaffected because they don't care. It does not change the reality that your actions CAN be monitored online, nor that they WILL be monitored, but it does disincentivize people from being open about it.

4) Small businesses and start ups are disproportionately impacted by requirements to have a privacy officer and otherwise dealing with regulation because there is an increased burden to market entry - if I have to spend thousands of dollars to start my small business, that is a pretty strong disincentive from doing so at all. And dealing with regulation DOES cost money. Ergo, this legislation advantages large, existing corporations over small businesses and start ups - even if everyone has to pay $5,000 a year in costs to the regulation, a business which makes only $25k is hurt a lot more by that than a company that makes $25M.

5) As a result of all of the above, it is a prime example of protectionism masquerading as protection of civil rights - the purpose of the bill is ultimately to harm foreign businesses and small businesses, giving large businesses already located in the EU an advantage and reducing competition with them. This makes it a bad attempt at legislation, and the US companies are in the right in attacking many of the provisions, and they are not only representing their own interests, but the interests of small businesses in the US and EU alike, as well as the people of the EU, who will benefit from increased competition, while they will not benefit at all from the privacy restrictions, which will not, in fact, make them any less susceptible to being tracked online, but may give them a false sense of security.

None of you addressed why I am wrong. If you cannot explain why I am wrong, and just repeat the same argument over and over again, it proves that you are incompetent and unaware of it, and your opinions are utterly worthless.

They explained how you are wrong multiple times.It's just that you refuse to accept it and started repeating the same "arguments" and ad personams - hiding behind walls of text.

If a company does not have the resources to respect the right to privacy, then it does not have the resources to act in this field. Much like when a company does not have the resources necessary for respecting safety measures, it does not have what it takes to work in fields such as chemistry, etc.

For the record - it's your "opinions" the ones that are obviously heavily biased and therefore worthless.

No. They just repeated their arguments over and over again. If you can't tell the difference, then you are functionally illiterate.

Here's a simple example for a simpleton:

I replace the taxes for the country with a $20,000 tax per person. That's perfectly fair, right? Everyone pays the same tax regardless of how much they make.

Oh wait, no it isn't - someone who makes $30,000 a year won't be able to survive under that tax, while someone who makes $1 million per year will barely even notice the tax.

Okay, so what about a 20% tax on your income for everyone. That's fair, right? That affects everyone proportionally!

Except of course it does not still. If living costs $1500 a month for rent, clothing, food, utilities, ect. (the essentials here), then it costs $18,000 a year to live. A 20% annual tax on someone making $20,000 a year in income means that they're now effectively making $16,000 per year, meaning that they can no longer afford their living expenses, while again, the guy making a million dollars per year is knocked down to a mere $800k per year - still more than enough to live on with lots of money left over.

These laws are "fair" (they are applied equally to everyone) but they have deeply unfair outcomes, and affect different people in very different ways. The idea that these laws don't hurt the poor would be beyond silly, and yet, there was nothing "unfair" about them - they applied the same to everyone.

This is the basic reality that they (and you) are not understanding or addressing.

You know what, I really think the corporations should ask for even more than this. Because if this goes through we only give up all our privacy rights. That's nothing, surely they could find something more for us to give up.

But seriously now, I really like how the corporations aren't even trying to conceal it any more. Just go all out, who cares.

I wish there was a way out of this for ordinary people but I really don't see it. The corporate interests are too strong and have too much money so they can quite literally buy any law they need to let them do whatever the hell they want. This is just incredible.

Or, to quote Joshua, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

I'm glad you noticed that too and called it out. What does it say about our society on a global scale when corporations are no longer even trying to put on a facade of innocence or just beliefs?